Second Amendment Sanctuaries

In the post Urban vs. Rural Politics I went through the growing divide between the politics of cities and the politics of rural America. Similarly the post Eliminating the Electoral College reviewed how in some states, Illinois and New York in particular, the urban areas of the state are controlling the politics of the entire state. The concept of sanctuary cities, counties and states is now bringing this to the forefront. In this case it's not sanctuary for immigrants, but sanctuary for gun owners.

Counties within different states are now declaring themselves as sanctuary counties for gun ownership. Plus it's not just ownership, they are declaring they will not support the efforts of any by the federal or state governments to enforce gun control legislation that they feel infringes on the Second Amendment. Here's a list of articles detailing these efforts:

State	Article
Colorado	In response to “red flag” gun bill, Fremont becomes Second Amendment sanctuary county
Illinois	Illinois counties declare 'sanctuary' status for gun owners
New Mexico Oregon	What Happens If Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce State Gun-Control Laws?
North Carolina	‘Gun Sanctuary’ movement spreads to NC as county adopts plan to thwart gun control
Washington	Sanctuary city for gun rights? Washington state city mulls law to protect 2nd Amendment

But it's not just cities and counties desiring to be referred to as gun sanctuary areas, it's states also. North Dakota (ND 1309) and West Virginia (HB 2170) have bills introduced that would make them gun ownership sanctuary states. Both of these bills essentially declare federal gun laws as null and void with these two states.

Liberals will probably end up screaming about the unconstitutionality of conservatives deciding which laws they will obey and which they want. The movement is referred to as a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" movement. The word "Sanctuary" was specifically chosen to mimic sanctuary cities and states covering immigration policies.

While the movements by individual cities and counties are mostly political theater, since it would have to stand up to the state constitutions. The movements by West Virginia and North Dakota are more substantial. The framers of the Constitution never intended to have a Federal Government as powerful as we have today. The powers of the Federal Government are enumerated in the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8). No where in the list of powers given to the Federal Government is the right to regulate the firearm industry, or any other industry for that matter. Powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution were reserved for the individual states and the population. West Virginia and North Dakota are simply reinforcing their right to control firearm regulations.

This is completely different from the use of sanctuary status on immigration issues. The fourth enumerated power of the Federal government is the ability to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean the Federal Government has complete control over immigration. The Constitution went on to dictate when the Federal Government was to take control of immigration. Article 1 Section 9 established 1808 as the year in which the individual states could no longer have any control over immigration.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but I can read and develop an understanding of things written down. Based on the Constitution, immigration sanctuary is unconstitutional but a Second Amendment sanctuary would be constitutional. Liberals will no doubt struggle to eliminate any Second Amendment sanctuary while preserving by any means necessary an immigration sanctuary. It's a shame we have reached the point that one of the fundamental rights we have as citizens now has to be protected in a sanctuary.